Re:India is leading IPv6 migration with 61.67% adoption
by ipv6_or_nat on Sunday August 15, 2021 @11:40AM
(#28189634)
You are confusing IPv6-only and running an IPv6 core. Those are not equivalent.
>It will probably not be the hosting company paying for the IPv4, but rather it will be the end customer, and they may not want to pay.
Of coarse it will be the hosting company paying for the IPv4 addresses as they will be the ones owning them.
Of coarse the end customers will complain and not want to pay, but pay they will as they have no other choice.
It’s neither here nor there whether the end customers run IPv4 or IPv6 internally, it’s the public IPv4 addresses that matter.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. At some point going IPv6-only and paying for (CG)NAT64 may be cheaper than trying to buy more and more IPv4 addresses. ISPs would already have IPv4 addresses, but they'd simply use them for reaching the 'legacy' Internet, and they wouldn't be assigned to people's routers WAN interface.
> Likewise with hosters. There is no choice but to use IPv4, damn the cost.
It will probably not be the hosting company paying for the IPv4, but rather it will be the end customer, and they may not want to pay.
The first address may be free, but if you want multiple, then you could be charged for the 'extra' ones. Depending on the number of public services needed, some people may find it cheaper to use the IPv4 address(es) on the front-end of a load balancer and have their actual system be IPv6.